PS 2631 
. A36 
1924 
Copy 2 



* * 


aV ^ 

Ay # t ' o 




* ,G r \5 *1 .. s s A <v 'o.*- .0* 

/ % /\v^\ p* • 

“* ^ v*^ * Jy-jH/zAA "* *p > ■£ 

. o> • &^m^r /» < .. v* a> 



* <2_ 1 ' O * '-ZsfA'^J* S) 

* *. . • 0 ^ . 0 

♦ x> V v * * * o «0 V % 5 * * ' 

*" »0- - 0 , »■ 62 35 • _ A y- v is>f «* 

%<. Ay *A ° <^ A cy * . 

W * jSss<i%0% °, 3r V • 

A ^ o "’ A 

. K ^ ^ -0^ ^ 
^ ' • • 4 4 A <+ 'o • * * <(y 

£ Q N ° *9 ^ 1 ° <£ p» > 0 W <J 

* < 




/ y 
^ • ♦ s \ y 
* **o A^ V 

" ° *<r\ ♦* 

*. *6 ^ : 

„* J? ^ 4 . '. 

* /> ^ * 




*911* ^0 * 

9* % S .M'* ^x> V v *v«* .<y 4 s **' ^ 


- ^ 

” Ap 4 

- v* cr 

• *4 

A «> 

» » 0 0 . V* 

* * "V ^ ^ * * * <V 

^ A^ r *$n A" * 

• W :wm* * 

* c,^ ■» v 

r / -V 




• ** 4 a <A o ^->1 -O' 

< A . t / 0 <S> p. v 0 

*. '° y ♦wfec v c° 

\0 rj^ * * 4 O 

> v 4^ > * v ° <xa ^ 

°o *7^T»* <-3 3i- 'A ll J^^‘. a.? 

%*•■'• A 0 V ' . . o 0 ,y _ . - . 


° A V "V 


> • * * G^ "'TVs 4 ’ A 

qV o « o ^ *^q .& V . i/« '<^ 

G * o 4* * X ^/r?7Z- *tr 




* A ^ 

— n o -^ •* 

r *°- c> .0 V 4 s * * % *> A *»•«, 
’« V ^ , v 




vr_ ,9 


t 


^ ^ V \ : o 



$ A 


•& A 

y*^ v * 


<-G -. 

* A? '^c>k • 

4 y 



s G° ^ 

^ r\ *£-* + , 

^ / -» & * « 
0^ s••, ^ 

° A * ^ 

- ** A' 

^ t * ^ * T ^ G° - 0 ° 

*- ^ ^ v 


: ^ . 



3 v% 

% y °o * ’ y v % ' 




<A> 





















->tixg^° ’^§m$' $ ~% 

V -rTT*’ **' °o *?^v o ^ *, 

•. ^ ,/ .Sfe^-. A ,* v a&:S -'° 



l ( a 


* 


*P, « 

- ^ o T 

. 11 WWW - O 

^ ** *^0 O 

% °’° ,\« ^ 

\ %^ V ^ "' 

; cov 

k «y ^ ° 

4* " 


* % 
; v 

* v> 

. *r^V .V 

.V <"U "° * * * A° 

- «f* <* + «P r° 0° 

< N * gp/lZ/p^ * V o ♦ 

*. *fe v* :£M£ a :* %. J ' 

0«* * , _ 


0 


y 


4 o 

» A? 5^ 

0* ^ O - _ 

, W ON ° ,\^ °^ *'< 

% ^ V * * * °* o 

^ a v ^rcOrA 0 

* A ^ 

/ ^ °^> 

* " *6 N \5 * 


o 


■2- 


.* 


V' 


y 


O' 


0 - ° " 


-* - • • s ’ A 

c. '^rJ' * O a G t i 

^> « * <S$S^|ftk* 

/*o v ^ O^ J 

- " Q ^ » 

\0 r^v * 

* < 7^y / y/ \)^P N ^ ^ 

^ O ^ ^CiJs^x* 0 


3 ^ * •' 1 


> v/ | 

<u • 


. 0' ^o ^ ° 

F > c 0^ 0 0 * ° ^ -% ,G> 

^ %£ ^ ^ ^ XMVSS “ 

- -^0* 

» f 


V A 




.0 V o 0 "' 


A 


O' 


y •*. 

V * 


o 


w 


< N 

. o V 

,0 v-, 

1 ** ,Cr ^ N> ^ J "o* 

a* »‘^fok- - v 






' \V^ 

^ 'SftT'ijfflpw, . A vv *<* ° 

► <£> ^ ^ ° 

*< V,: s * a 

•° v ^o 




A” <X, A 0* . 

, ^ A* ^ ^° 

- ^ A •> 

* o> , 


O N o 


V 


V 


$ 


y 
















































THE LETTERS OF EDGAR A. 
POE TO GEORGE W. 
EVELETH 


EDITED BY 

JAMES SOUTHALL WILSON 

Universtiy of Virginia 


Copyright 1924 by James S. Wilson 


Reprinted from the Alumni Bulletin, University of Virginia, January, 1924 














. * • *, 1 
















' 










* 


> 






The Letters of Edgar A. Poe to George 
W. Eveleth 


Edited by James Southaee Wieson 

(Copyright 1924 by James S. Wilson) 

John H. Ingram published his “Edgar Allan Poe: his 
Life. Letters, and Opinions” in 1880. Here for the first time 
were given many extracts from letters written to an unnamed 
correspondent, now long known to have been George W. Evel¬ 
eth. Ingram gave fourteen extracts, which were quoted in a 
manner that made impossible the piecing together of the sev¬ 
eral letters in their original sequence. He sometimes omitted 
place and date and occasionally a phrase; he rearranged the 
paragraphs of Poe’s letters, in one case 1 inverting them in 
order; and he did not print certain parts of the letters at all, 
and embedded other parts in a quoted form 2 * in his text. The 
manner in which he dismembered the letters is best seen from 
the table of references to Ingram’s volumes given below 4 in 
this article. 

In the volume devoted to letters, XVII of the Virginia Edi¬ 
tion of “Poe’s Complete Works,” Dr. James A. Harrison of 
the University of Virginia attempted to collect all the letters 
given by Ingram. He had not the facts that might have made 
this undertaking successful, and was therefore unable to collect 
all the parts of letters distributed throughout Ingram’s book 
or to put together or under their proper dates the letters that 
he did reprint. Woodberry and other biographers have quoted 
only brief portions of some of the letters. 

Eveleth wrote J. H. Ingram from Lewiston, Maine, on Oc¬ 
tober 30, 1878: “You ‘presume’ rightly that ‘no one but “My¬ 
self” possesses or may use—copies of “those (Poe) letters” ’ 
—that is no one may use, unless with my permission given 

1. Ingram, 1880, Vol. 11, p. 87. 

2 . Ingram, Vol. 1 , pp. 235 and 244. 

[ 1 ] 





hereafter, which I have now no thought of giving. I have not 
‘parted with’ the originals—prefer not to part with them just 
yet—think I shall send them to you by and by, if you inti¬ 
mate an acceptation of them. The matter of remuneration 
lies wholly with you—if none, no grumbling.” 3 What ulti¬ 
mately became of the originals is not known to the present 
writer, but in their complete and original form they are now 
first printed from Eveleth’s own copies as sent to J. H. In¬ 
gram. 

“The Letters of George W. Eveleth to Edgar Allan Poe” 
were first printed in The Bulletin of the New York Public 
Library of March, 1922, and reprinted separately in April, 
1922, edited with great care and skill by Thomas Ollive Mab- 
bott. These letters, with Mr. Mabbott’s notes, give the other 
side of the correspondence between Poe and Eveleth of which 
this is the first complete presentation of the Poe series. 

It now appears that the fourteen 4 parts of letters printed by 
Ingram are taken from seven letters written by Poe to Eveleth, 
and these seven letters comprised all the letters written by Poe 
to this correspondent, except one of which Eveleth wrote (Oc¬ 
tober 30, 1878) that it “(a mere note,) was given years ago, 
to somebody, who had written to me a request for a specimen 
of Poe’s handwriting. The date was later than the last in 
your possession, so must have been penned almost while the 
inditer was on the wing for the South. It asked me, if I re¬ 
member aright, to return some slips or items which were still 
in my keeping.” This note, which would increase to eight 
the number of letters in the series, has never been published to 
my knowledge. Eveleth was apparently at fault as to its date 

3. Ingram MSS., University of Virginia. 

4. The extracts printed by Ingram (1880) appear in his volumes as 

below: (1) Letter One, Vol. II, p. 72. (2) Letter Two, Vol. I, p. 

275, Vol. II, PP- 23 and 103. (3) Letter Three, Vol. I, pp. 167-8. 

(4) Letter Four, Vol. II, p. 87. (5) Letter Five, Vol. I, pp. 215, 235, 
244, Vol. II, pp. 86 and 132. (6) Letter Six, Vol. II, pp. 121 and 139. 
(7) Letter Seven, Vol. II, p. 217. 


[ 2 ] 




as Eveleth’s letter of July 9, 1848, was an answer to a lost 
letter asking the return of some “slips.” 

It also appears that one letter is missing from the series from 
Eveieth to Poe. Poe’s second letter, dated December 15, 
1846, is in answer to letters of June 9th 5 and October 13 and 
replies to queries not made by Eveieth in any of the eleven 
letters printed by Mr. Mabbott. Eveieth therefore wrote to 
Poe at least twelve letters, the fourth letter being lost, and Poe 
replied eight times, his seventh letter, a brief formal note, being 
also lost. It is possible also that Eveieth replied to the last 
note from Poe in a letter no longer preserved, since soon after 
Poe’s death, Mrs. Clemm wrote Eveieth from Lowell, Massa¬ 
chusetts, where she was visiting the Richmonds (Mrs. Rich¬ 
mond was Poe’s “Annie”), “Your last letter to him was sent 
to me from Richmond after he had gone to dwell with the 
angels.” 6 The last of Eveleth’s letters given by Mr. Mabbott 
was written from Brunswick, Maine, February 17, 1849. 

George W. Eveieth never met Poe. 7 He was, when in cor¬ 
respondence with Poe, a medical student and his letters were 
written in part from his home in Phillips and in part from the 
medical college at Brunswick, Maine. After Poe’s death he 
corresponded from 1850 to 1875 with Mrs. Clemm, Mrs. 
Lewis, Mrs. Ellett, Miss Annie C. Lynch, Mrs. Shelton, John 
H. B. Latrobe, John P. Kennedy, James Wood Davidson, and 
Mrs. Whitman, in an effort to collect material to refute Gris¬ 
wold’s scandals about Poe’s life. 8 In 1849, he wrote in The 

5. See Letter Two (II) of this series. (Ingram, Vol. II, p. 103.) 

6. Undated letters from Mrs. Clemm, quoted by Eveieth. Ingram 
MSS., University of Virginia. 

7. In a note interpolated within a letter to him from Mrs. Whit¬ 
man, dated September 30, 1874, which he copied in part, for Ingram, 
Eveieth wrote, referring to the Providence daguerreotype of Poe re¬ 
produced in Ingram’s edition of Poe’s works:—“it is no true lens 
through which for me to peer into the wondrous, far-down depths of 
the mind-and-soul of him with whom I thought I was somewhat 
acquainted (from his writings only—not personally), as “Edgar Allan 
Poe,” Ingram MSS., Eveieth Papers, University of Virginia. 

8. Ingram MSS., University of Virginia. Twenty-three of these 

[3] 



Portland Transcript a defense of Poe 9 and Janies W. David¬ 
son wrote him on May 28, 1866: “I have just read the memo¬ 
randa in The Old Guard for June, under the title of Toe and 
His Biographer, Griswold.’ I am grateful to you for putting 
in this form what I always felt to be true—that so. much of 
Griswold’s Memoir is utterly untrue 10 When he wrote his 
first two letters to Ingram in 1878, Eveleth was living in Lew¬ 
iston, Maine; his address on letters to Ingram from December 
28, 1881, to April 24, 1889, when he last wrote to Ingram, 
was Welton Street, Denver, Colorado. 11 

There is one reference to Eveleth in the letters that have 
been printed as Poe’s. Griswold printed in his memoir an un¬ 
dated letter 12 from Poe to himself to which there is a post¬ 
script that says, “The Eveleth you ask me about is a Yankee 
impertinent, who, knowing my extreme poverty, has for years 

letters, in whole or in part, were copied by G. W. Eveleth for J. H. 
Ingram in the same Ms. (October 1, 1878) from which Poe’s letters 
here given have been printed; also a letter from G. W. Eveleth, ad¬ 
dressed to Scribner’s Monthly, dated October 7, 1877 and signed H. 
W. B. All that Eveleth wrote or copied in this communication of 
October 1, 1878, is printed herewith, except these twenty-four letters 
or extracts (which include a few parenthetical words of comment by 
Eveleth) and the “Addenda to Eureka.” 

9. Referred to by Mabbott, p. 3, and Woodberry, Life of Poe, Vol. 
II, p. 441. 

10. Ingram MSS., University of Virginia. 

11. G. W. Eveleth wrote to Ingram seven letters, at least, after 
sending him the communication of October 1, 1878, from which the 
Poe letters are printed: October 30, 1878, Lewiston, Me.; December 
28, 1881; November 19, 1882; November 26, 1882; February 22, 1885; 
(his address on these four letters is 776 Welton Street, Denver, Colo.): 
November 6, 1887, April 24, 1889, (address, 2758 Welton Street, Den¬ 
ver, Colo.). Except that of October 30, 1878, from which the chief 
parts are quoted in this article, these seven letters are in the main 
friendly but sharply candid critical notes and questions upon Ingram’s 
life of Poe. Eveleth sought to have Ingram return the copied ad¬ 
denda to Eureka and the Graham engraving of Poe, when Ingram 
had not used them in his “Life”, but later withdrew the first re¬ 
quest. Ingram possessed a copy of the Graham engraving of Poe 
at the time of his death which may have been that sent him by Eve¬ 
leth. 

12. Harrison, Vol. XVII, pp. 346-7. 

[4] 



pestered me with unpaid letters,”—but of the letters which 
survive from Poe to Griswold, collation has shown that Gris¬ 
wold so shamelessly forged interpolations to his own advan¬ 
tage that there is ground for belief that he deliberately con¬ 
cocted letters with unfriendly references to friends like Eveleth 
and Duyckinck 13 in order to alienate their interest from Poe. 

The letters are reprinted here as Eveleth sent them to In¬ 
gram in continued sequence within a letter to Ingram, with 
the exception of the inclusion of the first note from Poe (the 
one in which was returned Eveleth’s subscription money to 
The Broadway Journal), which was separately sent to In¬ 
gram, and of the omission of the “Addenda to Eureka” and 
extracts from letters to Eveleth about Poe which do not seem 
properly a part of the Poe—not—Eveleth correspondence. The 
numbers 14 of the letters have been changed, since the intro¬ 
duction into this series of the Poe note, above referred to, of 
April 16, 1846, makes Eveleth’s “Letter One” the second of 
our series. The reader will note that Eveleth himself substi¬ 
tuted the initials “H. B. W.” 15 for his own name in the six let¬ 
ters sent Ingram on October 1, 1878; and again on October 30, 
1878, he wrote, 16 “You are at perfect liberty to give my Toe 
letters’ without name or initial.” The bracketed comments 
signed H. B. W. are, of course, Eveleth’s to Ingram. 

The notes following the letters will make clear the relation 
of these letters to those of Eveleth to Poe as published in The 
Bulletin of the New York Public Library, and to the versions 
that Ingram published in his two volume life of Poe of 1880. 

13. Harrison, Vol. XVII, p. 228. 

14. In Eveleth’s copy, therefore, Lecter Two (II) is headed “Num¬ 
ber One,” and so on to Letter Seven (VII), which is headed “Num¬ 
ber Six.” No other changes are made in Eveleth’s copy except in 
the spelling of one word (see Note 9, Letter Two), and in the omis¬ 
sion of the addenda and the copied letters mentioned in note 8, pre¬ 
ceding. 

15. Eveleth’s own explanation of why he chose “H. B. W.” as 
the initials to use is given at the close of his letter to Ingram which 
is printed, as he wrote it, after the Poe letters, here printed. 

16. Ingram MSS., University of Virginia, cf. Note 11, preceding. 



These letters are interesting for the freedom with which 
Poe states to this sympathetic but unknown young man the 
personal details of certain of his affairs and for the fullness 
with which he answers most of Eveleth’s sharp queries. As 
Dr. Mabbott has remarked, “Eveleth was the first- Poe spe¬ 
cialist,and his correspondence with Poe is more intimate 
than any others, save one or two, of the letters of Poe that 
have been preserved. 

I 

New York, April 16, 46. 

My dear Sir, 

You seem to take matters very easily and I really wonder 
at your patience under the circumstances. But the truth is I 
am in no degree to blame. Your letters, 1 one and all, reached 
me in due course of mail—and I attended to them, as far as 
I could. The business, in fact, was none of mine but of the 
person to whom I transferred the Journal and in whose hands 
it perished. 2 3 

Of course, I feel no less in honor bound to refund you your 
money, and now do so, with many thanks for your promptness 
and courtesy. 

Very cordially yours, 

Edgar A. Poe. 

G. W. Eveleth, Esqr. 

re Broadway Journal 

1. Eveleth had written December 21, 1845, January 5, and April 
3, 1846: printed as Letters I, II, and III by T. O. Mabbott, March, 
1922, Bulletin of the New York Public Library. 

This letter is printed substantially as it stands by Ingram, (Vol. II, 
p. 72). Commas are inserted in three places, omitted in one, and sub¬ 
stituted for the dash after “mail,” in Ingram. The MSS. in the Ingram 
collection, on a small slip, was separate from the other Eveleth letters 
and apparently was received at a different time. It is copied in a hand 
singularly like Poe’s. Eveleth considered his and Poe’s writing alike. 

2. The last number of The Broadway Journal, Vol. II, No. 26, was 
dated January 3, 1846 (Woodberry, Vol. II, p. 427.) 

3. T. H. Lane with whom Poe made an agreement December 3, 1845, 
transferring to him one-half interest in The Journal. Their office was 

[ 6 ] 



('Copies of Letters from Edgar Allan Poe to H. B. W.) 

New-York, Dec. 15/46. 

My Dear Hn: By way of beginning this letter, let me say 
a word or two of apology for not having sooner replied to 
your letters of June 9th 1 and Octo. 13th. For more than six 
months, I have been ill—for the greater part of that time, dan¬ 
gerously so, and quite unable to write even an ordinary letter. 
My magazine papers appearing in this interval were all in the 
publishers’ hands before I was taken sick. Since getting bet¬ 
ter, I have been, as a matter of course, overwhelmed with the 
business accumulating during my illness. 

It always gives me true pleasure to hear from you, and I 
wish you could spare time to write me more frequently. I am 
gratified by your good opinion of my writings, because what 
you say evinces the keenest discrimination. Ten times the 
praise you bestow on me would not please me half so much, 
were it not for the intermingled scraps of censure, or of ob¬ 
jection, which show me that you well know what you are talk¬ 
ing about. 

Let me now advert to the points of your two last letters: 

What you say about the blundering criticism of “the Hart- 

at 304 Broadway. Poe formally withdrew after printing a “Valedictory” 
on December 26, 1845. 

1. Better IV in the series of Eveleth letters edited by Mabbott is 
dated Oct. 13, 1846. No letter from Eveleth to Poe of June 9 is 
printed; apparently it is lost. Ingram dismembers this letter com¬ 
pletely. Vol. II, p. 103, omitting place and date, gives the first two 
paragraphs and the following introductory sentence; then leaps to 
“The criticism on Rogers -” and continues to end of letter, omit¬ 

ting closing sentence: Vol. I, p. 275, begins with the third para¬ 
graph, “What you say, etc.” and goes through the paragraph ending 
“the palpitating trees.” The reference to “Politian” is not given in 
Ingram, but the paragraph following is inserted in Vol. II, p. 23. 
Ingram makes no departures from Eveleth’s copy, in these parts that 
he prints, except in a few details of punctuation, italics, and words for 
numbers instead of figures. The heading is Eveleth’s to Ingram’s 
copies. 


[7] 



ford Review man” is just. 2 For the purposes of poetry, it is 
quite sufficient that a thing is possible—or at least that the im¬ 
probability be not offensively glaring. It is true that in sev¬ 
eral ways, as you say, the lamp might have thrown the bird’s 
shadow on the floor. My conception was that of the bracket 
candleabrum affixed against the wall, high up above the door 
and bust—as is often seen in the English palaces, and even in 
some of the better houses of New York. 

Your objection to the tinkling of the footfalls is far more 
pointed, and in the course of composition occurred so forci¬ 
bly to myself that I hesitated to use the term. I finally used 
it, because I saw that it had, in its (first) 3 conception, been 
suggested to my mind by the sense of the supernatural with 
which it was, at the moment, filled. No human or physical 
foot could tinkle on a soft carpet—therefore the tinkling of 
feet would vividly convey the supernatural impression. This 
was the idea, and it is good within itself; but if it fails (as I 
fear it does) to make itself immediately and generally felt, ac¬ 
cording to my intention, then in so much is it badly conveyed, 
or expressed. 

Your appreciation of “The Sleeper” delights me. 4 In the 
higher qualities of poetry, it is better than “The Raven”—but 
there is not one man in a million who could be brought to 
agree with me in this opinion. “The Raven,” of course, is far 
the better as a work of art—but in the true basis of all art, 
“The Sleeper” is the superior. I wrote the latter when quite 
a boy. 

You quote, I think, the two best lines in “The Valley of Un¬ 
rest”—those about the palpitating trees. 5 

2. Eveleth’s comment was apparently in the June 9 letter. The 
answer shows the nature of the Hartford Review’s criticism of “The 
Raven.” 

3. The word “first” here is marked through in Eveleth’s copy, but 
the line appears accidental. 

4. Eveleth returns to his discussion (of the lost letter, June 9) in 
his letter of January 19, 1847, of both “The Raven” and “The 
Sleeper.” See Mabbott, p. 10. 

5. Also obviously a reference to the June 9 letter. 

[ 8 ] 



There is no more of “Politian.” 6 

It may be some years before I publish the rest of my 
Tales, Essays, etc. 7 The publishers cheat—and I must wait 
till I can be my own publisher. The collection of tales issued 
by W. & P. (Wiley and Putnam) were selected by a gentle¬ 
man whose taste does not coincide with my own, from 72, 
written by me at various times—and those chosen are not my 
best—nor do they fairly represent me—in any respect. 

The criticism on Rogers is not mine—although, when it ap¬ 
peared I observed a similarity to my ordinary manner. 

The notice of Powell’s “Brittany” is mine. 8 You will see 
that it was merely a preparatory 9 notice—I had designed 
speaking in full, but something prevented me. 

The criticism on Shelley is not mine; is the work of Parke 
Godwin. I never saw it. 

The critic alluded to by Willis as connected with the Mir- 

6. This sentence is not given in Ingram. The question was in the 
June letter apparently. Ingram possessed Poe’s manuscript of 
“Politian” with the unprinted portion, which he secured from Mrs. 
Lewis. Later, he sold it and it became in time the property of Mr. 
J. P. Morgan. From this manuscript Dr. Thomas Ollive Mabbott 
prepared his excellent edition of the play, a first edition of the parts 
not previously printed. Ingram, upon the receipt of Eveleth’s letter 
with the copies of Poe’s letters, sent Eveleth one of the articles he 
had based upon the “Politian” ms. In his reply, October 30, 1878, 
Eveleth wrote Ingram: “I was glad to receive “Politian”—have re¬ 
read, in connection with it, the other “fragment” of the same, as given 
in Griswold’s edition—interest renewed and enlightened. My ques¬ 
tion to Poe about there being more of it implied that I thought there 
was an abrupt breaking off—as though for a future continuance. I 
took his answer in the light of the query—not, exactly, that no change 
in the original plan had been made, nor that no sentences or “scenes,” 
first contained, had been left out—simply that there was to be no 
continuance of the published article.” 

7. Eveleth, Oct. 14, expressed at the close of his letter the hope 
that Wiley and Putnam, who had printed a few of Poe’s Tales, would 
print the remainder. 

8. The reference is to a review in Graham’s, March, 1844. Reprinted, 
Harrison, Va. Ed. Works, Vol. XI, pp. 243 seq. 

9. In Eveleth’s copy this word is spelt “preparitory.” 


[9] 



ror, and as having found a parallel between Hood and Aid- 
rich is myself. See my reply 10 to “Outis” in the early num¬ 
bers of The Broadway Journal. 

My reference to L. G. Clark, in spirit but not in letter, is 
what you suppose. He abused me in his criticism—but so 
feebly—with such a parade of intention and effort, but with so 
little effect or power, that I—forgave him:—that is to say, I 
had little difficulty in pardoning him. His strong point was 
that I ought to write well, because I had asserted that others 
wrote ill; and that I didn't write well, because, although there 
had been a great deal of fuss made about me, I had written so 
little—only a small volume of a hundred pages. Why, he had 
written more himself! 

You will see that I have discontinued “The Literati” in God- 
ey’s Mag. I was forced to do so, because I found that people 
insisted on considering them elaborate criticisms, when I had 
no other design than critical gossip. The unexpected circula¬ 
tion of the series, also, suggested to me that I might make a 
hit and some profit, as well as proper fame, by extending the 
plan into that of a book 11 on American Letters generally, and 
keeping the publication in my own hands. I am now at this— 
body and soul. I intend to be thorough—as far as I can—to 
examine analytically, without reference to previous opinions 
by anybody —all the salient points of Literature in general— 
e. g. Poetry, The Drama, Criticism, Historical Writing, Ver¬ 
sification, etc., etc. You may get an idea of the manner in 
which I propose to write the whole book, by reading the no¬ 
tice of Hawthorne which will appear in the January “Godey,” 
as well as the article on “The Rationale of Verse” which will 
be out in March or April No.: of Colton’s Am. Magazine, or 

10. This part of the letter answers questions in Eveleth’s, Oct. 14 
letter. The “Outis” answers are printed in the Harrison Virginia 
Edition of Poe, Vol. XII, pp. 41-106. 

11. The book was, perhaps, never written. Mabbott says (note 
14, Letter Five) that a rough draft is preserved. The essays on Haw¬ 
thorne and on The Rationale of Verse are republished in Harrison, 
Volumes XIII and XIV. 


[10] 



Review. [In this connection, it occurs to me to mention the 
fact that there were afterward published in the pages of that 
Review some very able and promising articles—articles prom¬ 
ising more in the future—under the head of The American 
Drama (if my memory is correct, that was the title) ; which 
articles I have not seen in any collection of the author’s works,, 
and which, Mr. Ingram, I do not find named in the “Pros¬ 
pectus” of your edition of those works. H. B. W.] 12 

Do not trust, in making up your library, to the “opinions” 
in the Godey series. 13 I meant “honest”—but my meaning is 
not so fully made out as I could wish. I thought too little of 
the series myself to guard sufficiently against haste, inaccuracy, 
or prejudice. The book will be true —according to the best 
of my abilities. 

As regards Dana, it is more than possible that I may be do¬ 
ing him wrong. I have not read him since I was a boy, and 
must read him carefully again. The Frogpondians (Boston¬ 
ians) have badgered me so much that I fear I am apt to fall 
into prejudices about them. I have used some of their Pundits 
up, at all events, in C( The Rationale of Verse.” I will mail 
you the number as soon as it appears—for I really wish you 
to tell me what you think of it. 

As regards “The Stylus” 14 —that is the grand purpose of 
my life, from which I have never swerved for a moment. But 
I cannot afford to risk anything by precipitancy—and I can 
afford to wait—at least, until I finish the hook. When that is. 
out, I will start the Mag.—and then I will pay you a visit at 

12. This note is, of course, Eveleth’s, and was naturally not re¬ 
printed by Ingram. 

13. This is Poe’s own word as to how “The Literati”, as a series 
is to be taken. Poe carefully differentiated between the work he 
did as a literary man and as a “magazinist”;—“journalist” was not a 
current word with him. 

14. “The grand purpose of my life” fitly phrases this passion of 
Poe’s to establish a magazine of his own. First with the name as 
“The Penn,” then as “The Stylus,” he continued his fruitless efforts, 
to the very end of his days. 


[11] 



Phillips. 15 In the meantime, let me thank you heartily for 
your name as a subscriber. 

Please write—and do not pay the postage. 

Truly Your Friend 

Edgar A. Poe 
III 

New York, Feb. 16. ’47 

My Dear H: 

Some weeks ago I mailed you two newspapers which, from 
what you say in your last letter, 1 I see you have not received. 
I now enclose some slips which will save me the necessity of 
writing on painful topics. By and by I will write you more at 
length. 

Please re-inclose the slips when read. 2 

What you tell me about the accusation of plagiarism made by 
the “Phil. Sat. Ev. Post” surprises me. It is the first I heard 
of it—with the exception of a hint in one of your previous 
letters—but which I did not then comprehend. Please let 
me know as many particulars as you can remember—for I 
must see into the charge. Who edits the paper? Who pub¬ 
lishes it? etc., etc., etc. About what time was the accusation 
made? I assure you that it is totally false. In 1840 I pub¬ 
lished a book with this title—“The Conchologist’s First Book 
—A System of Testacious Malacology, arranged expressly for 
the use of Schools, in which the animals according to Cuvier, 
are given with the shells, a great number of new species added, 
and the whole brought up, as accurately as possible to the pres¬ 
ent condition of the science. By Edgar A. Poe. With illustra¬ 
tions of 215 shells, presenting a correct type of each genus.” 

15. Ingram omits “at Phillips,” perhaps lest the identity of Poe’s 
correspondent should be discovered. He also omits, “Please write 
—etc.” 

1. Poe is replying to Eveleth’s long letter of January 19, 1847. 
(Letter V, Mabbott). Ingram gives the letter substantially as 
printed here, Vol. 1, p. 167. 

2. Eveleth acknowledges one paper on February 21, (Home Jour¬ 
nal, January 9, 1847); cf. Mabbott, note 1, Letter VI. 

[ 12 ] 



This, I presume, is the work referred to. I wrote it in con¬ 
junction with Professor Thomas Wyatt, 3 and Professor Mc- 
Murtrie, of Philadelphia—my name being put to the work, as 
best known and—most likely to aid its circulation. I wrote 
the Preface and Introduction, and translated from Cuvier the 
accounts of the animals, etc. All School-books are necessarily 
made in a similar way. The very title-page acknowledges that 
the animals are given “according to Cuvier.” This charge is 
infamous, and I shall prosecute for it, as soon as I settle my 
accounts with “The Mirror.” 

Truly Your Friend 

Edgar A. Poe 
IV 


New York, Mar. 11/47 

Valued Correspondent : I am still quite sick and over¬ 
whelmed with business—but snatch a few moments to reply to 
your’s of the 21st ult. 1 

I really forget whether I did mail you one or two papers 
—but presume that the slips enclosed in my letter covered all. 

The “scholar” and “gentleman” referred to 2 is Evart A. 
Duyckinck, of this city, formerly editor of “Arcturus,” now 
of “The Literary World.” 

I fear that, according to the law technicalities, there is noth¬ 
ing “actionable” in the Post’s paragraphs 3 —but I shall make 
them retract by some means. 

3. Poe’s defense of his part in “The Conchologist’s First Book” 
was reaffirmed by Thomas Wyatt after Poe’s death. The remainder 
of Eveleth’s letter, as far as it is answered, is taken up in Poe’s next 
letter. 

1. Answer to Eveleth’s letter of February 21 (Letter VI, Mab- 
bott) and to one query in Letter V (Mabbott). Ingram omits the 
first part of the letter. Beginning with “The vagabond,” he prints 
the remainder of the paragraph and follows it with the preceding 
paragraph, thus inverting the order of the two paragraphs, Ingram, 
Vol. II, p. 87. A large part of the letter is not given by Ingram. 

2. The communication in The Home Journal, January 9, 1847. 

3. Reference is made to the charge of plagiarism in the Conchol- 
ogy book, mentioned in Eveleth’s January 19 letter. 

[13] 



My suit against “The Mirror” has terminated by a verdict 
of $225 in my favor.—The costs arid all will make them a bill 
of $492. Pretty well—considering that there was no actual 
“damage” done to me. 

I enclose you my reply to English, 4 which will enable you to 
comprehend his accusations. The vagabond, at the period of 
the suit’s coming on, ran off to Washington,—for fear of be¬ 
ing criminally prosecuted. The “acknowledgment” referred 
to was not forthcoming, and “The Mirror” could not get a 
single witness to testify one word against my character. 

Thank you for your promise about “The Stylus.” I depend 
upon you implicitly. 

You were perfectly right in what you said to Godey. 5 

I can not tell you why the review of Hawthorne 6 does not 
appear—but I presume we shall have it by and by. He paid 
me for it, when I sent it—so I have no business to ask about it. 

Most truly your friend 

Edgar A. Poe 

P. S. The “Valdemar Case” was a hoax, 7 of course. 8 

4. Eveleth had asked about Thomas Dunn English’s letter in 
The Mirror. English wrote articles in The Mirror, June 23, 1846, and 
The Evening Telegraph. Poe answered in The Spirit of the Times, 
Philadelphia, July 10, 1846, and English replied in The Evening Mirror 
of July 13. The letters are reprinted in Harrison, Vol. XVII (Letters), 
pp. 233-255. Cf. Note 1 above. 

5. Eveleth wrote Godey the reasons as Poe had given them for 
the discontinuance of “The Literati.” 

6. The Hawthorne paper was published in Godey’s Lady’s Book, 
November, 1847. It is printed in Harrison, Vol. XIII, pp. 141-155. 

7. Eveleth, who was a medical student, in his letter of January 19, 

wrote that he had “strenuously held that it was true.” “But I tell 
you that I strongly suspect it for a hoax * * *” Dr. John W. 

Robertson in his “Edgar A. Poe: A Study,” p. 316, reproduces Poe’s 
reply to A. Ramsay of Stonehaven, Scotland, who had appealed “for 
the sake of the Science” to Poe for a statement of the genuineness 
of the “facts” in the “Valdemar Case.” Poe answered, “Some few 
people believe it—but I do not—and don’t you.” The matter-of-fact 
Scotchman, in reply, regretted that Poe had not been able “at once 
to affirm or deny it.” 

8. It is noteworthy, that though Poe answers this query from an ear- 

[14] 



V 


New York, Jan. 4, 1848. 

Good Friend: Your last, dated July 26th, 1 ends with— 
“Write, will you not?” I have been living ever since in a con¬ 
stant state of intention to write, and finally concluded not to 
write at all, until I could say something definite about “The 
Stylus” and other matters. You perceive that I now send you 
a Prospectus. But before I speak further on this topic, let me 
succinctly reply to various points in your letter. 

1. “Hawthorne” is out. 2 How do you like it? 

2. “The Rationale of Verse” 3 was found to come down too 
heavily (as I forewarned you it did) upon some of poor Col¬ 
ton’s personal friends in Frogpondium—the “pundits,” you 
know; so I gave him “a song” for it, and took it back. The 
song was “Ulalume—a Ballad,” published in the December 
number of the Am. Review. I enclose it, as copied by the 
Home Journal (Willis’s paper), with the editor’s remarks. 
Please let me know how you like “Ulalume.” As for the 
“Rat. of Verse,” I sold it to “Graham” at a round advance on 
Colton’s price, and in Graham’s hands it is still—but not to 

lier letter in a post-script, he makes no reply to Eveleth’s inquiry, 
made in the same paragraph, as to the English and French publica¬ 
tions that Poe had “written articles for.” 

1. Poe answers quite fully, but not in order, the questions of Eve¬ 
leth’s letter of July 27, 1847, (Note. Poe gives date as July 26), 
(Letter VII, Mabbott). In Volume II, page 132, Ingram prints this 
letter as far as “5;” continues from “6” to “8,” then leaps to closing 
paragraph and gives to end of letter. Answer “5” is printed, In¬ 
gram, Vol. II, p. 86. Answer “8” is printed, in part only, Ingram, 
Vol. I, p. 235. Answer “9” is printed, Ingram, Vol. I, 244. Answer 
“11” is printed with one phrase omitted and “not” of the next to 
last line in italics, Ingram, Vol. I, 215. Some parts of this letter are, 
therefore, not given in Ingram. 

2. See note 6, Letter IV. 

3. “The Rationale of Verse” in an earlier form entitled “Notes on 
English Verse” appeared in The Pioneer, Lowell’s short-lived magazine, 
March 1843. Rewritten and expanded, it was published under the later 
title in The Southern Literary Messenger, October-November, 1848. Re¬ 
printed, Harrison, Volume XIV, pp. 209 seq. 

[15] 



remain even there; for I mean to get it back, revise or re¬ 
write it (since “Evangeline” has been published), and deliver 
it as a lecture when I go South and West on my Magazine 
expedition. 

3. I have been “so still” on account of preparation for the 
Magazine campaign; also have been working at my book— 
nevertheless I have written some trifles not yet published-— 
some which have been. 

4. My health is better—best. I have never been so well. 

5. I do not well see how I could have otherwise replied to 
English. 4 You must know him (English) before you can 
well estimate my reply. He is so thorough a “blatherskite” 
that to have replied to him with dignity, would have been the 
extreme of the ludicrous. The only true plan—not to have 
answered him at all—was precluded on account of the nature 
of some of his accusations—forgery, for instance. To such 
charges, even from the Autocrat of all the Asses, a man is 
compelled to answer. There he had me. Answer him I must. 
But how ? Believe me, there exists no such dilemma as that in 
which a gentleman is placed when he is forced to reply to a 
blackguard. If he have any genius, then is the time for its 
display. I confess to you that I rather like that reply of mine, 
in a literary sense; and so do a great many of my friends. It 
fully answered its purpose, beyond a doubt. Would to Heaven 
every work of art did as much! You err in supposing me to 
have been “peevish” when I wrote the reply. The peevishness 
was all “put on” as a part of my argument—of my plan; so 
was the “indignation” with which I wound up. How could I 
be either peevish or indignant about a matter so well adapted 
to further my purposes? Were I able to afford so expensive 
a luxury as personal—especially, as refutable —abuse, I would 
willingly pay any man $2,000 per annum to hammer away at 
me all the year round. 

4. Poe had sent Eveleth, with his March 11 letter, his reply to 
Thomas Dunn English, (see note 4, Lettfcr Three). Eveleth com¬ 
mented: “In some instances you have come down too nearly on a level 
with English himself.” 


[16] 



6. The “common friend” 5 alluded to is Mrs. Frances S. 
Osgood, the poetess. 

7. I agree with you only in part, as regards Miss [Mar¬ 
garet] Fuller. 6 She has some general, but no particular, criti¬ 
cal powers. She belongs to a school of criticism—the “Go- 
thean, aesthetic, eulogistic.” The creed of this school is that, in 
criticising an author, you must imitate him, ape him, out- 
Herod Herod. She is grossly dishonest. 7 She abuses Lowell, 
for example (the best of our poets, perhaps) on account of a 
personal quarrel with him. She has omitted all mention of 
me, for the same reason—although, a short time before the is¬ 
sue of her book, she praised me highly in the Tribune. I in¬ 
close you her criticism, that you may judge for yourself. She 
praised “Witchcraft,” because Mathews (who todies her) 
wrote it. In a word, she is an ill-tempered and very incon¬ 
sistent Old-Maid —Avoid her. 

8. Nothing was omitted in “Marie Roget” but what I 
omitted myself:—all that is mystification. The story was 
originally published in Snowden’s “Lady’s Companion.” 8 
The “naval officer,” who committed the murder (rather, the 
accidental death arising from an attempt at abortion) con¬ 
fessed it; and the whole matter is now well understood—but, 
for the sake of relatives, I must not speak further. 

9. “The Gold Bug” was originally sent to Graham; but he 
not liking it, I got him to take some critical papers instead, and 

5. Eveleth had quoted a sentence from Poe’s Reply to English and 
- draws from it his questions as to “necessities” and the “terrible evil” 

(See Harrison, Vol. XVII, pp. 241 , 242 , and 250 ), and the “common 
friend” from whom Poe had first heard whispers, circulated by Eng¬ 
lish according to Poe, accusing the latter of forgery. Poe later won 
his suit, as these letters show, against English. 

6. Eveleth had called Margaret Fuller’s “Papers on Literature and 

Art” a most excellent book. * * * “She seems to agree with you 

in all her judgments.” 

7. This sentence and the phrase below “(who todies her)” were 
omitted by Ingram. 

8. Ingram did not print this sentence but uses in his book the 
knowledge that “Marie Roget” first appeared in Snowden’s. 

[ 17 ] 



sent it to “The Dollar Newspaper,” which had ottered $100 
for the best story. It obtained the premium, and made a great 
noise. 

10. The “necessities” 9 were pecuniary ones. I referred to 
a sneer at my poverty, on the part of “The Mirror.” 

11. You say—“Can you hint to me what was the ‘terrible 
evil’ 9 which caused the ‘irregularities’ so profoundly la¬ 
mented?” Yes, I can do more than hint. This “evil” was the 
greatest which can befall a man. Six years ago, a wife, whom 
I loved as no man ever loved before, ruptured a blood-vessel 
in singing. Her life was despaired of. I took leave of her 
forever and underwent all the agonies of her death. She re¬ 
covered partially, and I again hoped. At the end of a year, 
the vessel broke again. I went through precisely the same 
scene. Again, in about a year afterward. 10 Then again— 
again—again—and even once again, at varying intervals. 
Each time I felt all the agonies of her death—and at each ac¬ 
cession of the disorder I loved her more dearly and clung to 
her life with more desperate pertinacity. But I am constitu¬ 
tionally sensitive—nervous in a very unusual degree. I became 
insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity. During these 
fits of absolute unconsciousness, I drank—God only knows 
how often or how much. As a matter of course, my enemies 
referred the insanity to the drink, rather than the drink to the 
insanity. I had, indeed, nearly abandoned all hope of perma¬ 
nent cure, when I found one in the death of my wife. This 
I can and do endure as becomes a man. It was the horrible 
never-ending oscillation between hope and despair which I 
could not longer have endured, without total loss of reason. 
In the death of what was my life, then, I receive a new, but— 
Oh God!—how melancholy an existence. 

And now, having replied to all your* queries, let me refer to 
“The Stylus.” I am resolved to be my own publisher. To be 

9. See Note 4 above. 

10. The phrase, “Again, in about a year afterward/’ is omitted by 
Ingram. 


[ 18 ] 



controlled is to be ruined. My ambition is great. If I suc¬ 
ceed, I put myself (within 2 years) in possession of a fortune 
and infinitely more. My plan is to go through the South and 
West, and endeavor to interest my friends so as to commence 
with a list of at least 500 subscribers. With this list, I can 
take the matter into my own hands. There are some of my 
friends who have sufficient confidence in me to advance their 
subscription—but, at all events, succeed I will. Can you or 
will you help me ? I have room to say no more. 

Truly Your’s— 

E. A. Poe. 


VI 


New York, Feb. 29—48. 

I mean to start for Richmond on the 10th March. Every¬ 
thing has gone as I. wished it, and my final success is certain, or 
I abandon all claim to the title of Vates. The only contre¬ 
temps of any moment, lately, has been Willis’s somewhat pre¬ 
mature announcement of my projects:—but this will only 
force me into action a little sooner than I had proposed. Let 
me now answer the points of your last letter. 1 

Colton 2 acted pretty much as all mere men of the world act. 
I think very little the worse of him for his endeavor to suc¬ 
ceed with you at my expense. I always liked him, and I be¬ 
lieve he liked me. His “I understand the matter perfectly” 
amuses me. Certainly, then, it was the only matter he did un¬ 
derstand. His intellect was o. 

“The Rationale of Verse” will appear in “Graham” after 
all. I will stop in Philadelphia to see the proofs. 

1. Poe replies to Eyeleth’s letter of January 11 (Letter VIII, Mab- 
bott). Ingram, Vol. II, p. 139 seq. gives, without place or date, this 
letter as far as “The editor of the ‘Weekly Universe/ ” then leaps to 
“The ‘most distinguished of American scholars’ ” and continues 
through the letter and one paragraph of the postscript (addenda to 
Eureka). These omitted portions are found in Ingram, Vol. II, p. 121. 

2. Printed “C—” in Ingram. George H. Colton, editor of The Amer¬ 
ican Whig Review. He published “The Raven,” “Ulalume” and other 
compositions of Poe’s and was a visitor at his home at Fordham. 

[19] 



The editor of the “Weekly Universe” speaks kindly, and I 
find no fault with his representing my habits as “shockingly 
irregular.” He could not have had the “personal acquaint¬ 
ance” with me, of which he writes, but has fallen into a very 
natural error. The fact is thus:—my habits are vigorously 
abstemious, and I omit nothing of the natural regimen requi¬ 
site for health—i. e., I rise early, eat moderately, drink noth¬ 
ing but water, and take abundant and regular exercise in the 
open air. But this is my private life—my studious and literary 
life—and of course escapes the eye of the world. The desire 
for society comes upon me only when I have become excited 
by drink. Then only I go—that is, at these times only I have 
been in the practice of going among my friends; who seldom, 
or in fact never, having seen me unless excited, take it for 
granted that I am always so. Those who really know me, 
know better. In the meantime I shall turn the general error to 
account. But enough of this—the causes which maddened 
me to the drinking point are no more, and I am done drink¬ 
ing forever. I do not know the editors and contributors of 
the “Universe,” and was not aware of the existence of such a 
paper. Who are they? or is it a secret. 

The “most distinguished of American scholars” (Prospectus 
of “The Stylus”—H. B. W.) 3 is Prof. Chas. Anthon, author 
of the “Classical Dictionary.” 

I presume you have seen some newspaper notices of my late 
lecture on the Universe. 4 You could have gleaned, however, 
no idea of what the lecture was, from what the papers said it 
was. All praised it—as far as I have yet seen—and all ab¬ 
surdly misrepresented it. The only report of it which ap¬ 
proaches the truth—is the one I enclose—from the “Express” 

3. Eveleth’s inserted note makes clear the meaning. Poe had an¬ 
nounced in the prospectus of “The Stylus” that his classical depart¬ 
ment would be in the hands of the “most distinguished of American 
scholars.” Charles W. Anthon, professor in Columbia University, had 
known of Poe’s work and corresponded with him when he was with The 
Southern Literary Messenger. 

4. “Eureka.” 


[ 20 ] 



—written by E. A. Hopkins, a gentleman of much scientific 
acquirement, son of Bishop Hopkins of Vermont; but he 
conveys only my general idea, and his digest is full of inac¬ 
curacies. I enclose also a slip from the “Courier & Enquirer.” 
Please return them. To eke out a chance of your understand¬ 
ing what I really did say, I add a loose summary of my propo¬ 
sitions and results:— 

The General Proposition is this—Because Nothing was, 
therefore All Things are. 

1— An inspection of the universality of Gravitation—i. e., 
of the fact that each particle tends, not to any one common 
point, but to every other particle—suggests perfect totality 
or absolute unity, as the source of the phenomenon. 

2— Gravity is but the mode in which is manifested the tend¬ 
ency of all things to return into their original unity—is but the 
reaction of the first Divine Act. 

3— The law regulating the return—i. e., the law of Gravita¬ 
tion—is but a necessary result of the necessary and sole pos¬ 
sible mode of equable irradiation of matter through space: this 
equable irradiation is necessary as a basis for the Nebular 
Theory of Laplace. 

A —The Universe of Stars (contradistinguished from the 
Universe of Space) is limited. 

5— Mind is cognizant of Matter only through its two prop¬ 
erties, attraction and repulsion: therefore Matter is only at¬ 
traction and repulsion: a finally consolidated globe-of-globes, 
being but one particle, would be without attraction—i. e., grav¬ 
itation: the existence of such a globe presupposed the expul¬ 
sion of the separative ether which we know to exist between 
the particles as at present diffused: thus the final globe would 
be matter without attraction and repulsion: but these are mat¬ 
ter: then the final globe would be matter without matter—i. e., 
no matter at all: it must disappear. This Unity is Nothing¬ 
ness. 

6— Matter, springing from Unity, sprang from Nothing¬ 
ness-—i. e., was created. 


[ 21 ] 


7—All will return to Nothingness, in returning to Unity. 

Read these items after the Report. As to the Lecture, I 
am very quiet about it—but, if you have ever dealt with such 
topics, you will recognize the novelty and moment of my 
view. What I have propounded will (in good time) revolu¬ 
tionize the world of Physical and Metaphysical Science. I say 
this calmly—but I say it. 

I shall not go till I hear from you. 

Cordially— 

E. A. Poe. 

By the bye, lest you infer that my views, in detail, are the 
same with those advanced in the Nebular Hypothesis , I ven¬ 
ture to offer a few addenda, the substance of which was 
penned, though never printed, several years ago, under the 
head of—A Prediction. 5 

(Editor’s Note—Here follows Poe’s discussion of the theories of his 
“Eureka.” It has been printed in ten closely printed pages as “Poe’s Ad¬ 
denda to Eureka,” Harrison, Vol. XVI, pp. 337 seq. For that reason, it 
is not printed here.) 

How will that do for a postscript ? 6 

VII 


New York, June 26, 49. 

On the principle of “better late than never,” I avail myself 
of a few moments’ leisure to say a word or two in reply 1 to 

5. The postscript which follows here covers ten printed pages as 
“Poe’s Addenda to ‘Eureka’ ” in Harrison, Vol. XVI, pp. 337-346. 
Harrison reprinted it from The Methodist Review, January, 1896. Ingram 
apparently never published it, though when Eveleth asked for its return, 
after he failed to use it in the “Life of Poe,” he urged the intention of 
using it later. It is not reprinted here because of its nature, length, and 
accessibility in a correct form. It is a difficult discussion of astronomical 
theories. 

6. With this sentence Poe closes the long “Addenda to ‘Eureka.’ ” 

1. Eveleth wrote to Poe, March 9, 1848, but Poe did not reply; he 

wrote again July 9, 1848, beginning “Here are two of the ‘slips’ re¬ 
quested.” This was evidently in reply to the missing letter from Poe 
which (see introductory note to these letters) Eveleth said was a 

[ 22 ] 



your last letter—the one from Brunswick. 2 

You have had time to form an opinion of “Eureka.” Let 
me know, frankly, how it impresses you. It is accomplishing 
all that I prophesied—even more. 

In respect to Draper 3 —by a singular coincidence, he is the 
chief of the very sect of Hog-ites to whom I refer as “the 
most intolerant and intolerable set of bigots and tyrants that 
ever existed on the face of the Earth.” A merely perceptive 
man, with no intrinsic force—no power of generalization—in 
short, a pompous nobody. He is aware (for there have been 
plenty to tell him) that I intend him in “Eureka.” 

I do not comprehend you about my being the “autobiogra¬ 
pher 4 of Holden's Magazine ” I occasionally hear of that 
work, but have never seen a number of it. 

“The Rationale of Verse” appeared in the last November 
and December numbers of “The Southern Literary Messen¬ 
ger.” In the Feb. number (I think) I published (editorially) 
a review of “The Fable 5 for Critics”—it is not much. Low¬ 
ell might have done better. 

I have never written any poem called “Ullahana.” What 
makes you suppose I have? 

mere request for the return of “some slips.” The present letter is in 
answer to a letter from Eveleth of February 17, 1849, (Letter XI,. Mab- 
bott) but by specifying that it answers only “the one from Brunswick” it 
implies that Poe was conscious of the earlier unanswered letters. In¬ 
gram prints this letter (Vol. II, p. 217) complete, except for leaving 
out Eveleth’s note and introducing “i. e. ‘For Annie’ ” into the text 
of the letter. 

2. Eveleth was a medical student; the Maine Medical School was in 
Brunswick. Most of Eveleth’s letters are from Phillips, Me. 

3. John W. Draper, then a professor in New York University (Mab- 
bott), to whom Eveleth had sent an article and from whose letters he 

quoted a reference to Poe. _ , , , ,, , 

4. Remembering the “Autography articles, Eveleth saddled upon 

Poe imitations of the same nature then appearing in Holden’s Dollar 
Magazine. See Note 5, Letter XI (Mabbott) for fuller statement. 

5. Eveleth thought him author of “The Fable”: this is Poe’s answer. 

[23] 



I enclose the last poem (of any length) which I have pub¬ 
lished (“For Annie,” if my recollection is right. H. B. W.). 6 
How do you like it? You know I put much faith in your po¬ 
etical judgments. It is from Willis’s “H. Journal.” 

Do you ever see “The Literary World?” 7 

Touching “The Stylus”:—Monk Lewis once was asked how 
he came, in one of his acted plays, to introduce black banditti, 
when, in the country where the scene was laid, black people 
were quite unknown. His answer was:—“I introduced them 
because I truly anticipated that blacks would have more effect 
on my audience than whites—and if, I had taken it into my 
head that, by making them sky-blue the effect would have 
been greater, why—sky-blue they should have been.” To ap¬ 
ply this idea to “The Stylus”—I am awaiting the best oppor¬ 
tunity for its issue; and if by waiting until the day of judg¬ 
ment I perceive still increasing chances of ultimate success, why 
until the day of judgment I will patiently wait. I am now 
going to Richmond to “see about it”—and possibly I may get 
out the first number on next January. 

Write soon and more frequently. I always receive your 
letters with interest. 

Cordially your friend, 

Edgar A. Poe 

Please re-enclose the verses. 

(Editor’s Note—Eveleth gave after the last letter copies and ex¬ 
tracts from letters about Poe, listed in the Notes, and then began his 
own letter to Ingram.) 


6. Ingram conveys the impression that Poe wrote the title into the 
letter. This sentence is, of course, Eveleth’s note. “For Annie” ap¬ 
peared in Flag of Our Union, April 28, 1849. Poe enclosed a reprint from 
The Home Journal. Poe published no other known poem until on July 7, 
“To My Mother” was printed in the same Boston publication. 

7. A New York publication to which Poe is said to have contrib¬ 
uted during this period. It is listed in the Killis Campbell Poe Bib¬ 
liography (Cambridge History of American Literature), but no article 
is cited as first published in The Literary World. 

[ 24 ] 



John H. Ingram Esq. 

General Postoffice, 

Engineer-in Chief’s Office, 

London, 

England. 1 

There, my friend and partner in the Good Cause, you have 
my contribution toward the making-up of something like a 
true estimate of Poe. You will not complain of any lack in 
quantity of matter. Of quality, I will say nothing. 

You say in your letter (which came duly) that Mrs. Whit¬ 
man posted you thoroughly about her relations with him. 
Nevertheless, I thought I would give you such of her letters 
in my possession, as have a bearing in the case—You may find 
an item or a hint which will be new. 

I have written on both sides of the leaves, and with lines 
near together, in order that the bill for postage might be not 
very large, having taken for granted that you would re-copy 
for the press. 

You perceive that I have taken the initials H. B. W., instead 
of giving either my own initials or my full name. I ask you 
to follow the same course —that is, not to present me, in proper 
person, at all before the public. I have my reasons. It is fair 
that you should know whose initials I have appropriated—they 
are owned by a Mrs. Helen Bullock Webster. Mrs. Whitman 
once sent me a very interesting letter (to me interesting) which 
the lady had written her. I have a suspicion (it may be 
groundless) that Mrs. Webster is the author of Prometheus in 
Atlantis —Did you ever read it? 

I did not see (in Aps. Journal) “Unknown Correspond¬ 
ence of Poe”— How, unknown? 

I received your letter (’74) ; but was situated so (with no 
documents within reach) that I couldn’t supply you with any 

1. The ms. goes straight on into this letter. Between Poe’s last let¬ 
ter (VII) and this note, are copied the twenty-four letters or extracts 
from letters about Poe (see note 8, Introduction), which have not been 
reprinted here. 


[ 25 ] 



information. Davidson was so kind as to lend me your arti¬ 
cle in Infl Rev. I am glad to put in this (my mite) without a 
reference to pay; yet, if you can well afford, a trifle would be 
acceptable; for, as the Fates know, I am poor enough. 

I mail, with this, a package of clippings—among them Eng¬ 
lish vs Poe, and Poe in rejoinder. 2 

Cordially— 

G. W. Eveleth. 

Box 214, Lewiston, Maine, U. S. 

Oct. 1—78. 

2. This was evidently the clipping received from Poe. Ingram re¬ 
tained it and it is now in the Ingram Papers at the University of Vir¬ 
ginia. 



/ 



























•v* 


pr\ 


P-fr 74. 

























- * ^ 

* 

'o. >* A ^ 

■'A A> o *• o . <$> 

°- A .°JW ' * 

y d^ss\Vr\'^ ««• 

v^ : 


* -.w* A \ ° W* y* % w 

<T x 4 * * * _____ _x\ _ u „ O, 






C 


_ , , ( 0* '°o >" •'U^I'- -PJ ■ ■ 

° -*^w. ^ ^ * 

\ v*' / v 1 ^’/ *••- 

•.%/' 

c,^ 4- ° mtW; . A" * 5 * ,. .j-'^'i . 4 1 

%-W^,' G v \ *4V?. A ^ ^«’ A , ••* 

. A ‘ .o- / .•-•/^ A ,cA < 

* K a&fl77?2? ~ ° ^ •> Xt> /*. *KW/y^J* <m 



* ~y 





A 
o v 


«5 - 

y A o A 

■ y °* * 

^ f jT* <A A 






o t- 


.0 




x* 

<: 



i°A A§f^ ; y °A * 

...» y ^ a--’ y <»*'*-•• a° ..3 

o A* •* * ^ -fc? 

* ** ** .^Wa*. ^ ^ ;£m&\ Ay 


\p A 


>v 


’"o •" * A 

• 'V ** _- 0 “ # 

, ■» O J’■* 

^ >C^ ° 

; ° > 

*W Ay, - 

SV 0 * %, *?*%&** ** 

• cP *- ■ 



> A'"' ^ 

r\ > _ 1 * o ^ 




v "-'j' - t s ^ /A •*’ o. * * a <y 

. A o 4 • ‘ ■ • ♦ A .«j^ % A 

* r *P C U -r O J^ ’^SXV r.v&A -jr 

^ ^ *■ ,J K-s A 0 

jt. <v» - O V , 




^ oi 


^ °>v 


^ /aWa 


% 



o &+ A * 



S^V ” 

. 4. —v~l* AV v5 "o • i. 

<y ' * * 5 A ^ 

■•, ^ y o, a 

* ^ « 

^■cr 


-t°<, . 




. J? V, 

. y ^ -teziw** y 

. ■■•’y°.—-% "’ 

• A ^ 

r ^ s 

° ,S^ 

, v . .^ A ^ - „ 

<» A, y O '*'o * * *■ 

V V * * A U . 

»"/♦_ ^ <y - t * ° 


* 

■* v <#. 



% ^ * 
»Vv • 




-> rj^ 




H 0 * 



4- 0v ^ 


o 


i° ^ 'y^M; *y 

.0° v^-’y A* . 

A /. * a '. ^ - « v a y - *» 

■ A y .ViV/i' -a ^ *si^* v> 

^s s '$Mmk. v^ v f s 

A'V "Ww; a A 

♦ y a -y^vv ■v ^ 

xs. ■'»•»* A ■* ‘ 

t '*- ^ y .*iL**.A 


* 

* V <$> 


* A <^ ' v * * 5 
*. -o. y .A!% ^ 

^ \ 0 4 


'o V 


4-A 







4 

<y ^ 

v *•■’•’ y °4. 




k° ': x ^ms: «5 


• y 

y y /AA-. y y 

•* O' V * 

Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
^ A > '^. ' Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

Treatment Date: Sept. 2009 


^ PreservationTechnologies 


A WORLO LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive' 1 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



* # 


A •-jqpa** a ^ *.w.* a 

A ° • * A ' . S * f\ v IT) '« . . «> A 

4 


^ '' A' V- "** s ' <G V A *o. > * A * 

A. °o A A / , AA X X . AA % 

^ ^ <4 0/r AMP% - A > a ^ A 


' . . S 




O' 


4 


^ * <2. 
<5> o i i * <lV 




y •<*£» «/» 

,V O- ‘...» .0 ; , ^ A 

. vLtolA ^0^ A*A_ * s '-°; 



<4^ 

»* A" ^ 


‘^O <4- * 

^ <3 


4 A, 




^ <j4 * 

°. A* 


4^ ; 


* a ° 

. . s .0 ' O . x 


/ V ^ 

* 4 <* ..- v . 

A V c° N 0 * o> rS L # * 

A .-kaw- A c° ,CW. °o 



%. * •«° 0 a 0 

5 ’ * % C\ ,9^ A * ° 

T*. A "& V 

V, A ♦ 

vO C, * 

^ ° * a^-A - 

<$* XV A 

d* • £TA* 'O- ^ „> 

O 'o.A A ^ 



o V 



-lA A 4 *• 

A ,A - 

vO <p 



A y* 


^° A -. 


A^> 

^ ^ 

a* <* <o v ' ^ A''.:-' a <v 

* 4 'o x4 o 0 N ° f -X, ry • «• ' * „ ^o A^ c 0 14 ° * ^ 

<A * A^v A ^ r. u * o 4 • _r^A % ■*£ 

N * '^vAm * rjr \j ^////TA -P V AAIR' 

: >o* -mm^: . 0,I ^W"- 

o° a A A- ^°° a 1 *y 

^ 0 >VJ> % *£' r * 1 * °A > V % 

^ *58?* ,■A %S ' a “■’5^** x A v % _ *\ ’•. 1| 



•S 




• ,A >°\ 

A v O A^vVy-v *0 

A <v *•“»'’ ^° -^. 

A/ / - 

* -A A 


\v *p. ~ ~ ' A 

V^ 4*ALa c\ A - ^ * o 

o A A^ JSSlB* ^ <4 «■ 

^ °www* a^'a •*'S'^miiP ^ 0 c^ ^ »w/W‘ -* 

O, *o. A * A <A o> 'o • * * A 

^ C> 0° N ° * rtV # t / « o « 0 

■ ' A ,’^ft,^ Ax .<' *' 0102 %*:. 0 .A A ~ 





<X -.. , 



&: X if 

P!° 

■ <0-' -*/’•■ « v 

.«•», A A X»"x. *£ 



-A v r * 

" A A : 

D0QSS BROS. X o 




0 - 0 ' A u 'V ^ 4 ^ ' A 

4 ^ a0~ V V 

* ^p <4^ AK\W/k° 0 ^ a^ ' 
: ao 9? : ° t 0 

a AA V iss ■ ,¥ txAv ^ ^ 


6' ^ 


uiKfH.Nl «? A y V A-' 'X, *. 

JAN 7 fc f A '••** A <► "■vXs* A A - ‘ 

t I » A o W O AO A , , x *P 

“ o 4 „ *p s0 o 






V O 










































